Nevermind. You find it coherent, you realize that you lied (i have gave a coherent definition of God since my first post) so you go and look for something that might look incoherent because I did not demonstrate it in the post.Unfortunately "being everything" is a quality that I can give to God (since he has all the qualities per my definition). So, there you go no more incoherence.Stop being so dense and move on.

"Being everything" has no meaning and points to nothing. But more importantly, merely providing an arbitrary definition of something doesn't make it real.

Many people make the same mistake that you are making. You think that proving the existence of something is proving that that thing exist physically. Existence does not stop with the physical world.

If I ask "what is the difference between Math and me? history wise" I'm looking for the answer along the line : "Math has always existed and I have a certain age" not "I am human and Math is not, no matter how much time has passed" You see the difference?

Where do you see me asserting anything? I'm just asking questions there and you seem to be dodging the answer with "You can say whatever you want but that doesn't make it true"

I didn't say WILL feel loved or WON'T be able to count them. Stop insulting me.

Care to try again with different answers?What is so different (history wise) between Hate and Math?How do you know that Math is not just in your brain? That it exist outside your mind?

I am giving you the most direct answer one can give: Love is an emotion that exists only in the mind, math and gravity exist independently. That's the difference. It doesn't matter what answer you are "looking for", or how many times you ask. If you think my answer is incorrect you need to demonstrate why, not just ask the same question over and over again until you hear what you want to hear.

But I doubt that any of this matters to you. The fact that my responses "insult" you reveals that you are not "just asking questions" at all.

Logged

Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Luk, this definition of your god - where did you get that? As I mentioned earlier in the thread, this definition is, in reality, that of Anselm, a medieval theologian. Look at chapter 2 of the link to see this.

The problem with Anselm's 'proof' of god is, though, that although it supported his existing belief that there was a god, it had the problem faced by philosophy that though logic dictated the answer was correct it does not follow that the existence of anything is demonstrated unless all the premises are correct.

Anyway, read the text and tell me what you think, Luk.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

I know that, I was asking "history wise" the difference between them relative to time.

Love is an emotion and math is not, no matter how much time has passed.

I know that!(and you are right) Let me explain to you with an example. If I ask "what is the difference between Math and me? history wise" I'm looking for the answer along the line : "Math has always existed and I have a certain age" not "I am human and Math is not, no matter how much time has passed" You see the difference?

I was asking "history wise" the difference between them relative to time.

OK Luk, I think I finally get it. You are not asserting anything, you are merely saying, "Hey guys, I have this notion that, much like math and gravity, love has always existed. Unfortunately, I just can't figure out any way whatsoever to demonstrate how this would be possible, so can you help me do that?"

So apparently you have asked a bunch of atheists to help you figure out a way to show them that god exists. It seems to me that such an endeavor has failure written all over it, but I suppose it never hurts to try.

So here is my response to the difference between love and math relative to time:

Time has existed since the Big Bang, and math, being an independent universal means of quantification, has existed just as long. Love, on the other hand, has only existed as long as there has been a mind suitably evolved for emotions. I cannot pinpoint exactly when the first such mind existed. Did dinosaurs experience even a rudimentary version of the feelings we call "love"? I suspect so, as many of them seem to have been herd or pack-type animals, but we can't know for sure. Regardless, it is safe to say that love's existence is merely a flash in the pan relative to time. I would assume this is, again, not the answer you were looking for.

Quote

what is the difference between Math and me?

Now, this one I think I can handle. With math, one generally gets specific answers that make perfect sense. With you, well...

"Time has existed since the Big Bang, and math, being an independent universal means of quantification, has existed just as long. Love, on the other hand, has only existed as long as there has been a mind suitably evolved for emotions. " Why can't we say that math existed as long as there has been a mind suitably evolved for such a concept?

"Time has existed since the Big Bang, and math, being an independent universal means of quantification, has existed just as long. Love, on the other hand, has only existed as long as there has been a mind suitably evolved for emotions. " Why can't we say that math existed as long as there has been a mind suitably evolved for such a concept?

Lukvance, what would be the point of saying that math has been around as long? You are still slipping away from the things you yourself have said. If you do not have any good reason for thinking that love, or math or god exist aside from the brains of beings who think them up, just say you don't know why. Stop pretending that, given enough time, you will be able to come up with something. You cannot. Because the thing you are looking for does not exist in the real world. And the real world is the only one that we know about for sure.

Please don't try to re-define "exist" again. Just because you can imagine something (like an all-powerful all knowing all loving father in the sky) or give something a name, like Jehovah, Brahma or glodsarker does not make that something real.

That fact is the very foundation of the difference between imaginary, ie made up, and real. You continue to try to confuse imaginary and real. I don't know if you truly cannot tell the difference-- which would be very sad and make for a difficult life for you-- or if you are just jerking people around trying to be contrary--which would be only annoying.

I hope for your sake that you are just jerking us around, because if you are, you could, at least in theory, stop it.

Promise. No jerking. It's really a question that I ask myself. What is the difference in origin between emotions and maths. Why can't we say that math existed as long as there has been a mind suitably evolved for such a concept?I am not trying to prove anything anymore. The existence of God have been already proven.

I am not trying to prove anything anymore. The existence of God have been already proven.

Yeah... no it hasn't. You lost that debate. You wouldn't admit defeat, so you called for a vote to see what the members thought. You still lost. The existence of an omnimax god cannot be proven because it is an impossible concept.

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

Promise. No jerking. It's really a question that I ask myself. What is the difference in origin between emotions and maths. Why can't we say that math existed as long as there has been a mind suitably evolved for such a concept?I am not trying to prove anything anymore. The existence of God have been already proven.

If you, or anyone else, has proven the physical existence of god, you should go and collect your Nobel Prize for doing something that nobody else in the history of the world has been able to do! Congratulations! We will say we knew you when.

The existence of god, meaning that a being with some attributes of a god exists in the real physical world, is most definitely not proven. That is why there are atheists. You could say that the concept of a god does exist in people's minds and no argument there. The concept of a god exists, of course, and varies in description depending on who you ask.

There is not even a coherent description of a god, because nobody can detect it in any concrete way. Nobody could tell you how big or small or what color or what temperature a god is, or how he shows himself to be real to anyone who does not already have a god-concept in mind.

The concept of a god in someone's mind is not the same as an actual being walking, flying or swimming around doing things to the physical earth or to people or to animals and plants. Just like the concepts of a demon or a fairy or an elf or a fire-breathing dragon exist so that people can write stories about them, make movie about them, draw picture of them, etc.

But none of them have any real existence apart from the imaginary. Nobody could tell you how big or small or what color or what temperature demons are, or fairies are, or how they show themselves to be real to anyone who does not already have a demon-concept or a fairy-concept in mind.

We have been around and around with this. Yet, you still maintain that a description from the imagination is that same as real physical existence. Why? In what area of life does that make any sense?

Do you see things that other people around you cannot see? I am serious here.

It's really a question that I ask myself. What is the difference in origin between emotions and maths. Why can't we say that math existed as long as there has been a mind suitably evolved for such a concept?

Rephrase this question. I mean, convey your question using different words, perhaps in a different sentence structure entirely.

I just don't think your question is asking what you think it's asking. And perhaps it's just me, but I honestly don't understand your question. Rewording it may help.

Quote

I am not trying to prove anything anymore. The existence of God have been already proven.

The existence of the concept of god is about the only thing established, and I suspect that hasn't been a topic of debate for at least the past 100,000 years. Probably longer. Certainly no one here is arguing against that, correct?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Yeah... no it hasn't. You lost that debate. You wouldn't admit defeat, so you called for a vote to see what the members thought. You still lost. The existence of an omnimax god cannot be proven because it is an impossible concept.

I was talking about the talk we had that lead to post #870 Sorry you misunderstood.

It's really a question that I ask myself. What is the difference in origin between emotions and maths. Why can't we say that math existed as long as there has been a mind suitably evolved for such a concept?

Rephrase this question. I mean, convey your question using different words, perhaps in a different sentence structure entirely.

Can we prove that Math isn't just a product of our imagination? (like love)

Quote

Quote

I am not trying to prove anything anymore. The existence of God have been already proven.

The existence of the concept of god is about the only thing established, and I suspect that hasn't been a topic of debate for at least the past 100,000 years. Probably longer. Certainly no one here is arguing against that, correct?

Correct. That was the purpose of the thread. "Probabilities of God's existence debate" Is that he does exist. As a concept if you wish, but exist nevertheless. If you want we could debate on another thread on the existence of God as a physical being. But I'm pretty sure that you won't get many response. (I know what mine would be )

Lukvance, I think you have it exactly right: gods exist in the same way that love exists. Love is a real emotion, scientists have located the places in the brain that are activated when someone is in love, and are even beginning to figure out who falls in love with who.

Good. That closes the thread God exist (as much as love)

Yes, gods exist, but only inside of people's brains. Along with everything else made up and impossible that can be imagined, like an enormous bowl of pistachio ice cream large enough to fill the Grand Canyon. That is not real, outside of people's brains. Neither is love, and neither are gods--without people, they cannot exist.

Is that clear? Do you get my point? Or did you just skip over everything I wrote in that long post after the first paragraph?

Actually, as nogodsforme said herself in the above post, you seem to have ignored everything in her post #868. I wonder why that is...

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

Lukvance, I think you have it exactly right: gods exist in the same way that love exists. Love is a real emotion, scientists have located the places in the brain that are activated when someone is in love, and are even beginning to figure out who falls in love with who.

Good. That closes the thread God exist (as much as love)

Yes, gods exist, but only inside of people's brains. Along with everything else made up and impossible that can be imagined, like an enormous bowl of pistachio ice cream large enough to fill the Grand Canyon. That is not real, outside of people's brains. Neither is love, and neither are gods--without people, they cannot exist.

Is that clear? Do you get my point? Or did you just skip over everything I wrote in that long post after the first paragraph?

Actually, as nogodsforme said herself in the above post, you seem to have ignored everything in her post #868. I wonder why that is...

Ignored? no. What do you expect me to answer to? It wasn't the subject of this thread anymore. The existence of God had been proved.You want me to say that love is not real? That when you say "I love you" you really mean nothing? That's it's just a lie (since it's not real)? What would that bring to the conversation. I proved that God was as real as love. If you want to live a lie (telling people you love them or doing things in you lives out of love) that's your choice, I don't have any say in that.

Can we prove that Math isn't just a product of our imagination? (like love)

Has it actually been established that 'love' is not a product of our imagination?

But, ignoring that part, I'd be remiss to try to prove that math exists independently of a conscious mind. Certainly that isn't the case for the symbolic language and structure that we typically associate with mathematical discipline. But I suppose that if we're talking strictly of quantifiable relationships, well, one merely need to assume that an external, shared objective reality exists. Under that assumption, then quantifiable relations exist by default (even if it is just '1' - shared external objective reality), independently of sentient minds. I would still be remiss to call that 'proof' of math.

Quote

Correct. That was the purpose of the thread. "Probabilities of God's existence debate" Is that he does exist. As a concept if you wish, but exist nevertheless. If you want we could debate on another thread on the existence of God as a physical being. But I'm pretty sure that you won't get many response. (I know what mine would be )

That really isn't the purpose of the thread. I'm pretty sure that "Does the concept of god exist" is a question no one really bothers to ask. Because we pretty much assume that everyone's answer is 'yes'. If that really has been your purpose, then you may as well have started a topic of discussion on the question of "Is 'run' a word in the English language". It's a valid question, but an idiotic topic of conversation.

What would your response be regarding the question of god having a physical existence?

Edit: fixxy quoting

« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 08:37:28 AM by jdawg70 »

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

You want me to say that love is not real? That when you say "I love you" you really mean nothing? That's it's just a lie (since it's not real)? What would that bring to the conversation. I proved that God was as real as love. If you want to live a lie (telling people you love them or doing things in you lives out of love) that's your choice, I don't have any say in that.

Little-known fact: I have never told anyone I loved them. Ever. Not because I didn't feel it; just because it makes me very nervous.I have amended the post, whilst, hopefully, keeping the meaning. OAA, There are certain words that are not used on WWGHAGB Mod

« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 01:12:08 PM by Graybeard »

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

And I think he's being more than innaccurate about his claim (that he has somehow proven the unprovable). Why is your opinion superior to mine?

See above

« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 01:17:11 PM by Graybeard »

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

Because There are things that are unprovable on both sides. You cant prove god does not exist, and he can not prove it does. Both sides have their evidence and we spout it all over this site but it is mostly opinion. I think he has met his own burden. And as Luk was just chastized for calling some else a liar the other day by a moderator because it does not help I thought I would chime in.

Could he be lying? Yes!!! But it is not necessary to use that term which always causes bad blood. GB Mod

Do you really believe he is attempting to deceive or is he simply is mistaken?

Do you really believe he is attempting to deceive or is he simply is mistaken?

He's mistaken about his belief in a god and he's quite confused in his claim about having proven its - sorry, his; I forgot Lukvance's god is a male ("ultimate best" and all that BS) - existence.

« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 01:23:42 PM by Graybeard »

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

LOLShow me evidence for a god. Go ahead. Just one piece of unambiguous evidence.

I don't want to try to prove the existence of god, being that i do not believe he or it is likely to exist. But prove any example of something appearing from nothing. To me that is impossible. So saying god is impossible, I say a naturally occurring universe is impossible IMO. Both sides of this argument don't have evidence

Religous folks have an answer, they were told by the creator by people in an oral tradition that the universe was whipped up by god. those tales though outlandish seem little more outlandish than one day there was nothing then there was enough energy to create a trillion X trillion X quadrillion ^1,000,000 tons of mass

The only thing slightly more outlandish than nothing spawning a universe is Nothing spawining a god that could create a universe. Both ideas are above my paygrade.

But proof of god to the religious might include

1) the universe2) Second 3rd hand eyewittness accounts from a flawed and adulterated text.3) Life!!! Can abiogenesis reasonably generate a DNA strand so complex as to make the most rudimentary form of life. Under what conditions can:----a) a dna strand complex enough to self replicate a cell wall?----b) a dna strand complex enough to produce energy from food?----c) a dna strand complex enough to replicate the above. -------i) I know that the universe is 24 billion light years in diameter and that is a huge petri dish but from what I understand of cellular ---------biology that is beyond the odds of finding a fully functional macintosh laptop with os 10 naturally occurring on a network on a ---------planet that never had life.4) Love5) Sentient matter.

I find all of these things to be beyond my reasoning but I do not find my ignorance compelling enough for me to believe that there has to be a god. But the alternative is so complex that I find the two on the same level of ridiculous.

Religous folks have an answer, they were told by the creator by people in an oral tradition that the universe was whipped up by god.

They don't have an answer. They have a story that's been debunked time and time again. An answer actually answers the question. If you asked me what the color purple looked like, and I answered it tasted like cheese, would that be an answer? No, it would not.

those tales though outlandish seem little more outlandish than one day there was nothing then there was enough energy to create a trillion X trillion X quadrillion ^1,000,000 tons of mass

We have a saying in Portuguese. It goes thusly: "Gato escondido com o rabo de fora.". Basically, it refers to someone who's hiding, but who has left such a big clue to his true "location".Put simply, if I have never accused you of being a theist in disguise, I will now. You're a theist in disguise.

The only thing slightly more outlandish than nothing spawning a universe is Nothing spawining a god that could create a universe. Both ideas are above my paygrade.

I went back to your first posts, where you pulled facts out of your ass. You haven't learned since then, I see.

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

OMG you think I am a closet theist. well that proves that you can be wrong! I guess you might need to reevaluate your reasoning ability.

I may on occasion call myself an atheist but, I have said many times before I am mostly an agnostic leaning toward atheist. I do not know the answers I almost certainly think that the bibles I have read are wrong. Bibles being the root of almost all knowledge of god I think that is pretty dang good proof that there is no god. But I do reserve some fraction of my belief for the possibility of a god.

PS What facts did I pull out of my ass? There were almost no claims to facts in my above post. they were analogies, thoughts and one fact that I miscalculated. I think the universe has a 14 billion light year radius and I expanded that the 24 billion diameter with a typo.

OMG you think I am a closet theist. well that proves that you can be wrong! I guess you might need to reevaluate your reasoning ability.

I may on occasion call myself an atheist but, I have said many times before I am mostly an agnostic leaning toward atheist.

Caution:

You and One Above All are using the words 'agnostic' and 'atheist' very differently. You may want to clear that up between the two of you before you guys progress any further. And I call this out specifically to you, epidemic, because I think you've bumped into the same issue before.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

OMG you think I am a closet theist. well that proves that you can be wrong! I guess you might need to reevaluate your reasoning ability.

When an "atheist" says something like:"Well, the non-existence of god is just slightly less ridiculous than his existence.", it sets off alarms in my head.First of all, the non-existence of a being that can't exist is infinitely less ridiculous than its existence. Second, only theists refer to their respective gods as "he". Atheists do this only when they're referring to any specific deity (which all tend to be male). Third, there's not one argument for the existence of a god. You keep claiming there is, but without presenting it.

I may on occasion call myself an atheist but, I have said many times before I am mostly an agnostic leaning toward atheist. I do not know the answers

Agnostic what? A "pure" agnostic is impossible for anyone with the capacity to understand and create concepts. You're at least smart enough to type, so you're not included in that category.Gnosticism refers to knowledge. Theism refers to belief. It'd be like you asking me what brand my car was and me replying with "My car is red.". It's nonsensical.

I almost certainly think that the bibles I have read are wrong. Bibles being the root of almost all knowledge of god I think that is pretty dang good proof that there is no god. But I do reserve some fraction of my belief for the possibility of a god.

Another thing: atheists know atheism isn't a belief. It's a lack of belief.

Religous folks have an answer, they were told by the creator by people in an oral tradition that the universe was whipped up by god. those tales though outlandish seem little more outlandish than one day there was nothing then there was enough energy to create a trillion X trillion X quadrillion ^1,000,000 tons of mass

No clue as to where you got the number from. Surprisingly enough, it's smaller than (slightly over half of) the estimated number of atoms in the Universe.

Also, you edited your post after I replied, so I didn't catch these... *cough* pieces of "evidence". Allow me to debunk them.

3) Life!!! Can abiogenesis reasonably generate a DNA strand so complex as to make the most rudimentary form of life.

Um... Yes. I posted something on this forum (that I found on another forum) a while back about metabolism arising without cells. Then there's the fact that RNA was synthesized in a lab by basically throwing all the necessary components for its existence into a petri dish and providing heat. Put the two together and you get... life.

-------i) I know that the universe is 24 billion light years in diameter and that is a huge petri dish but from what I understand of cellular ---------biology that is beyond the odds of finding a fully functional macintosh laptop with os 10 naturally occurring on a network on a ---------planet that never had life.

It's actually approximately 93 billion light years, with over 300 billion galaxies, each with billions of planets. Even if the odds of life arising by random chance were 10-10%, that there were only 1 billion planets per galaxy, and that only 0.1% of those planets were inhabitable, that adds up to an expected 30 million planets with life.Nice try with the new spin on the "tornado through the junkyard" strawman, though... Nah, just kidding. That "argument" sucks.

I find all of these things to be beyond my reasoning but I do not find my ignorance compelling enough for me to believe that there has to be a god. But the alternative is so complex that I find the two on the same level of ridiculous.

It's amazing that, when it suits your claim, your ignorance isn't "compelling enough" for you to believe in a god.And we're back to the argument from personal incredulity. This may surprise you, but the fact that you can't understand something isn't evidence that it's ridiculous or that it can't be real. It's just proof that you can't understand it.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.